Of interviews with important players in the immigration issue whether at congress or the administration and this mornings guest is senator cotton, the junior senator from arkansas and senator cotton served as an Army Infantry officer in iraq and afghanistan. Hes on several committees, banking intelligence Armed Services and obviously, well talk about today is immigration. Hes been a leader in the immigration issue even before the president raised its profile and i appreciate, senator, youre coming in and giving us some time and hell have to bolt for a meeting on the hill. So well cut this off at 8 time 15. My first question is. Youre, as i understand, a sixth generation arkansan. Its attracting more than it used to, but its clearly not an immigration state. What is it that attracted you to get involved in this issue and become really something of a thought leader and a debate leader . Mark, first off, thanks for having me this morning and thanks to the center for Immigration Studies and also for the very important work the center does on immigration. You know, immigration is a central issue for the United States and a lot of countries around the world. It touches on so many concerns that arkansans have about prosperity, security, community. I remember before i was in politics, you know, when i was in the army, congress trying to pass, in my opinion, deeply misguided laws in 2006 and 2007. In fact, 2007 was probably the only time ive written to members of Congress Asking him to oppose that terrible immigration bill. So it was an issue of personal interest to me. It was an issue of such great import to our country especially a country like america that as ultimately as fdr said was founded on immigrants and descendants of immigrants and not lost in the midst of time and since ive been in dng thats been a primary focus of mine, as well. One of my main accomplish ams in the house of representatives was to stop that dreaded immigration bill in 2013 in its tracks. The bill. After it had passed in the senate about this time of year right before the fourth of july back home and then through the month of july to try to bring to light just how flawed that bill was and what a terrible impact it would have on American Workers and families and communities and to keep it stopped because the forces behind that bill never seemed to quite give up and since ive come to the senate ive tried to focus, as well on reforming other aspect of the immigration system. My legislation that would revamp our Legal Immigration system and away from mere, extended families and random lotteries and other matters like that. So its an issue about which im personally passionate and it matters to arkan sans and sans matters to most americans. You, as you describe, youve been interested in immigration before it was cool as it were. In other words, the president obviously made it a highprofile issue and you were one of the authors and cosponsors of the rays act and it was reintroduced this year and that bill, not to go into a let of detail, but the point is it would move immigration away from family connections to get rid of the chain migration categories, but it would have a reduction in immigration. Probably not as much as some people said and some people were talking about half or 50 reduction and it would have been a significant reduction in immigration, and the president obviously endorsed it and he had an event for you and senator purdue at the white house. This year repeatedly hes been saying we need more immigration and one of the highest levels ever. You dont seem to have gone along with that program. Im wondering what are your thoughts about that . Let me go back to why i first wrote the rays act a couple of years ago and what we hope to accomplish with it. Theres no lack of people in congress focused on security and enforcement or our temporary guest worker programs. All things that are very immediate and sometimes things that people are just looking for quick fixes. Nothing against quick fixes especially when we have Serious Problems like we do with the asylum problem going on at the border right now, but there werent many people focused on the Legal Immigration system and to me thats one of the cornerstones of our immigration system because its not just about how we generate workers for our economy, but citizens for our country and thats ultimately what we should focus on is bringing in new citizens who will help contribute to the american story and as i studied our Legal Immigration system i realized it was just a mishmash of quotas or random set asides and approximately sees and outdated that no one could even explain. Only one of 18 workers that come here because of the skills and the job that theyll have and its almost entirely because at some point in the past they had some distant relative who made it to the United States somehow or another and even those who do come here because of employment dont reflect the needs of our economy. We have all kind of employment based on the immigration system that make no sense. We even have quota set aside for foreign lawyers to come to this country. A lot of people talk about jobs that americans wont do. The one thing we have enough of is lawyers in this country. The wages are down for lawyers. No kidding. So thats why i focused on the rays act and i focused on trying to i looked at the criteria and we consulted with thoughtful experts in maces like off the rail wra and kafrnie canada and we wanted an easily administered system, and theyre simple and straightforward and they cant contribute to success in this country. So age, younger americans and you want people to work and pay taxes for their entire lifetime. Their educational level and things like engineering and mathematics and the kind of job that theyll have in their local economy. A 100,000 wage in portssmith, arkansas, goes farther than new york city and taking into account the differences and speaking english is for success in our country, whether theyre a nobel prizewinning physicist and worldclass, and evaluated every six months and 12 months. Thats why we wrote the rays act. I think theres widespread agreement thats the kind of immigration system we need as it relates to numbers. They would gradually decline over time because of the reduction in extended family migrations. You cant bring in aunt, uncles and cousins and the rest by refocusing the number of green cards on the employment systems and theres an appropriate number of immigrants and the actual impact that the legislation would have. I think once you get the system right, once the criteria are set then thats an appropriate space for legislative compromise and i tend to think that were at legislative numbers as high as weve been since right before the 1924 immigration act and almost one in seven americans are foreign born. Because most of those foreigners are lowskilled and unskilled workers and thats one reason why americans with High School Degrees who are working with their hands and on their feet all day long have seen their wages suffer. So i think a gradual decline over time while refocusing in high school and workers will be very beneficial for unskilled and lowskilled American Workers. Thats an area that once you get the system right and the criteria and the baseline standards for how they were emitting foreign nationals to ultimately become citizens. The total area was for the legislative compromise. Its interesting because what you described in your rays act is not dissimilar from what we saw 20plus years ago with the Barbara Jordan commission. Barbara jordan, the leading democrat was a Bipartisan Commission and he endorsed the legislation and thats kind of how i wanted to get to the question about todays democrats and immigration. There was actually, ill use the word they were a lot more sensible from my perspective, a lot more centrist, i guess, in the past as president clinton and Barbara Jordan and others demonstrate. Were doing this on july 30th and tomorrow the next round of the president ial debates and frankly, the Democratic Party has gone kind of bonkers on immigration. This started before President Trumps election, but it really has accelerated since then. At the previous round of debates everyone raised their hand and supported decriminalizing infiltration across the border and they raised their hand and endorsed taxpayer funded democrats and now congresswoman omar has tweeted demanding taxpayer funded abortions for illegal aliens which is like republican researchers would have dreamed up over a couple of beers on a saturday night and yet its a real thing. My question is whats going on with your colleagues across the aisle . I think you put it well. I would restate and say the democrats have lost their mind when it comes to immigration. Barbara jordan and i probably wouldnt have agreed on much, but if we served in congress together, but on this she was largely right. A lot of Union Leaders used to have this view on immigration, as well. As the democrat have become a party focused list on Kitchen Table issues and legislation about not having enough of a paycheck to make it to the end of the month or worried about providing for their kids braces or their education, that they just focused more on questions of race, gender, sex, identity and for them its become more of a question of identity than a question of economics and security, and you know, if youre rich, if you were a rich lobbyist and you live in bethesda and youre a rich expresident in chappaqua outside new york. Mass migrations are a pretty good bargain for you . Immigrants are not coming here to take your job as a lobbyist and giving 200,000 speeches so you dont have to worry about the impact that you have on the local economy and youre not sitting in an emergency room waiting to get health care and not waiting to be able to see a doctor and in the meantime, it drops down the price of the personal services you depend on and you have a lot of immigrants working like child care and House Cleaning and landscaping and manicures and exciting new fusion restaurants as well. The story in bethesda in chappaqua, and los angeles and Silicon Valley of mass migration is a pretty good, but if youre in rural arkansas and youre along the border in texas and manufacturing communities in the upper midwest its the opposite story, but the Democratic Party largely represents those elites on the coast and they dont represent hard workers across it is country. I will be tuning in today to see them what theyll raise their hands. Cnn has said they wont have hand raising. Too bad. Cnn understands the party they represent was embarrassed. Cnn doesnt want to do anything to hurt their party. On some specific issues that the senate will be dealing with. Today, senator durbin is expected to bring up the bill for socalled temporary protected status for venezuelans. The house passed it recently. I understand hell bring it up for a unanimous consent and it will probably be objected to and the fact that this issue of tps for venezuelans is one that is coming up and theyre fleeing a socialist dictatorship and we published results showing that theres basically an informal moratorium on deportations to venezuela anyway and only the hardest cases and the handful of people is deported and thats an appropriate use that they have, so my question specifically is the issue of tps for venezuelans and more broadly, do you think that this idea of tps which were now dealing with from haitians and salvadorans and others, and does the whole structure need to be changed . So first off, let me express my sympathy to the venezuelans living here. Many have ties to america through family members or education or working here legally for many years and the status may be about to expire and let me express my sympathy to venezuelans living under the corrupt dictatorial regime of maduro. This is the kind of situation that temporary status is created to address. It was created for those living here legally and came on a visa, cant get it renewed and neighbor theyre a student and for some reason they cant return to their home country safely and either theres a famine going or a brutal socialist crackdown or theres been a Natural Disaster an what have you. Most americans recognize a sensible sound policy and principle. The problem is thats not the way its played out in practice over the last 20 years. As you stress, the t in tps stands for temporary. There are a few things more permanent than temporary protected status. I mean, we have more foreign nationals who got tps protection while there was a civil war in the country and the war has been settled for over ten years. Ultimately tps is not a way to live in this country permanently and become a citizen. It was a sign of a humanitarian gesture. So under normal conditions whats happening in venezuela now would be a good candidate for temporary protected status, but thats not the condition we live in. The bureaucracy for both parties been unwilling for tps status should be rescinded. Now that President Trump has finally done so, you have leftwing judges basically practicing a form of resistance law thats not letting the president withdru tps status, which is his resulting on the law. It is his pay to extend tps from countries. If senator dear bun and earn mendes, any those court by the president , id very much be open to viewing that. We shouldnt have more diskregary it the us, even the continues for which from you you required it if several years and thats never happened before. Have you give 10 to the tps yourself. One way to do it is to make it an affirmative grant that the president or a tomorrow tiff step the president has to take to rescind it as President Trump did in 2017. Make it like a reviewable status like you have to make a the affirmative step would have to be to extend it again. Things like that so we can make sure that we dont want to send hundreds or thousands of foreign nationals who are here legally back to our country that has been racked by an earthquake or by hurricanes. They cant process them or to socialist hell holes like venezuela, but at the same time conditions change and win. You cant return to the country when the civil war is waging and when the civil war is over you have to go back to the country and when its recovered from an earthquake or landslides or hurricanes you have to go back to your country. If you want to stay in this country you have to provide another legal avenue to stay in this country. Another piece of legislation is something called the fairness for highskilled immigrants act. The house passed this recently and what it would do is remove what are called the percountry caps which are in the law in order to ensure a certain level of diversity so that one country doesnt sort of take over the whole immigration system. This legislation would remove those caps and critics have said even though it wont increase the whole level of immigration, it would essentially bring about the takeover of our whole employmentbased immigration system from people from india because theyre the ones on the waiting list for these green cards. Youre one of the cosponsors of the bill and what are your answers to those critiques and whats the rationale for the legislation . So the fundamental reason why i think this is a step in the right direction, a modest step in the right direction, but a step in the right direction is that it move away from the kind of immigration system we have now to the kind of system i want. A system that doesnt care where you come from, but cares what you bring here. I think thats a step in the right direction and thats why the rays act would eliminate the caps and quotas, as well. We want to treat team as individuals no matter where they come from. As you saw for a practical matter it would require the number of green cards and it wouldnt increase and might even decrease the number of workers on the annual basis and new Foreign Workers being added to our economy because the large number of those indian nationals who get green cards are already here working on h1b visas. As a practical matter those vising a can be extended and im not the biggest fab of those h h1b visas either. Its important that we produce new citizens that believe in america and want to share in the american dream. I tell Tech Companies this a lot because the beneficiaries of the these h1b visas and they come to washington and they lobby for it. I dont want to give you more h1b visas. I want to give you more citizens. I want people to come here and participate in our country and become americans and in fact, also have better bargaining position as it ri lates to employers. I understand that some employers would rather have an h1b worker than an american citizen because the worker is almost an indentured s indentured servant, and the higher benefits or just to leave and go to another company. If you have an american citizen and they dont like what theyre being paid and its a hot job market they can always take their skills to another company. So that would be another positive step in the right direction. The way the lobbyists for the Tech Companies refer to that and the h1b visas are more loyal and they say they cant leave. Its not just h1bs and thats the case in a lot of these guest worker programs and thats one reason why even though my legislation doesnt focus on the guest worker program, i would much prefer to have citizens come in this country and working as opposed to people who want to come here and work in our jobs and send it back home. Not to say its never appropriate and all of the jobs should be going to American Workers first and thats one of the benefits and one of the good news stories we have from this economy between an economy thats very strong and an immigration system thats focused more on the needs of American Workers. You have for the first time a lot of people coming off the sidelines. Some of the very people that the democrats say they want to represent and that they want to get a fair shake. Whether theyre minority workers or teen age workers or disabled workers or excons. People who are getting jobs that we need done in our society and that we need to get off the side lines and succeed in america. Its better to hire those americans in those jobs whether its a tech job or landscaping job or what have you than to import Foreign Workers for those jobs. Amen. Just before i ask the next question. We have cards if you want to writ down a question. Ill be taking questions from the audience in a few minute. Another thing in the news from last week the administration what they billed as a Safe Third Country Agreement with guatemala. Guatemalans are saying its not really a safe third country and the point is to try to deal with the border crisis where people are basically using bogus asylum claims as a means of ilLegal Immigration. Details are very early in the text and we found a spanish version of the text, but apparently part of the arrangement is that were going to give more guest worker visas to guatemalans, i wont say bribe, but its sort of a bribe for guatemala to sign the agreement. What do you think of this idea of quid pro quo to get guatemala to cooperate and more broadly, what should we be doing about the border crisis . We have a crisis right now because some wellintentioned laws and misguided Court Decisions have conspired along with activists here in the United States and in america to drive all of this bogus and fraudulent claims of asylum to our border. Look, guatemala and honduras and el salvador have many troubles. However, their citizens do not face the kind of persecution based on who they are and what we believe that the asylum and refugee laws are made for. We designed the law for the jews from the soviet union or christians from syria. Those are people that we have passed asylum and refugee laws because theyre being persecuted for being a woman or worshipping god the way they choose, belonging to a certain ethnic or racial group. Or political group. We didnt pass asylum and refugee laws to alleviate the worlds suffering. Living in a poor country and living in a country thats dangerous. If it were we would have to admit 6 billion from around the world to our country. Its only the arbitrary fact that those countries are on the same land mass and they can travel on that same land mass to walk to our border thats created that crisis in the first place. We need to take steps to try to resolve the crisis in the border. Working with mexico to declare it the northern and southern border,rying to get guatemala hus as awe safe, third country and we have the obama judges who have a hair trigger any time aclu ask they follow a nationwide injunction, yorn one everany, and i have it take a stand against the activist judges unless he and the department of Homeland Security and attorney general barr announced another one to tighten the standards for asylum. Long term, guatemala and el salvador and honduras would send fewer foreign nationals here if there were better places. There are things we can do to help them crack down on crime in terms of information sharing and Technical Expertise and training that our fbi and dea can provide to them. Thats not going to happen next week. Right. Those countries in Central America are theyre not going to become norway tomorrow or next year or in the next decade. So those are good long term proposals that we should pursue, but we need to take immediate action to stop the fraud that we see in our border. John maynard kaine said in the long run were all dead so we cant wait for the long run. Were not the only country to face this if you take a look at europe over the last five or six years with the refugee crisis that the Syrian Civil War has generated and making it every country to the south can transit. Europe cannot give refuge to every Single Person who lives in africa and asia that doesnt have the standard of living that europe does. Simply not possible. Its not particularly, in my opinion to do what Angela Merkel said if you survive the journey you can come. Encouraging people to make the very dangerous journey to make the very dangerous journey or in our case from Central America and mexico. If she of theed wanted to she w plane after plane and shes trying to ameliorate the problem that she has on her boards and thats what a lot of democrats want to do and they want the people of individual cases without thinking about the lo longterm policy implication, specially last week if well decriminalize cross the border and were not going to Deport Anyone unless they commit a serious felony. And well pay for your health care and thats the definition of an openborder policy. Next month well have a Panel Discussion at the press club and well have a report on the National Security challenges from large foreign student program. And youve introduced a targeted legislation on one part of that that students and researchers who are working for or sponsored by the chinese army and intelligence who should not be getting student visas. Sort of more broadly, what do you see as the vulnerabilities that are currently very Large Program that they create for us. Lets not be naive here. The communist party and it purposely infiltrates americas laboratories with agents to try to steal National Security secrets. Thats not to say that every Chinese Student that comes to america is an agent of the Chinese Community party, but we shouldnt be naive about that threat and we should also err on the side of National Security as opposed to benef essence on behalf of the students. One way to do that is to do a thorough background check on the students that come here and another way to do is to look at the programs they want to study. Chinese students in Laboratory Institutes . No. Chinese students at major universities studying advanced scientific and engineering programs that do Major Contract work with the department of defense or the intelligence community, no. If Chinese Students want to come here to learn more about constitutional democracy and individual liberty, i can support that. Is there a broader issue, not just that first of all, iranian students and not just chinese in the narrow security sense, but is there a broader issue that we are kind of a tro feeing our own ability to grow our own tech expertise because there are only so many chairs and only so many seats in the lecture hall. Sure. Thats right and too many universities have become too reliant on Chinese Students and chinese money. And again, thats part of chinas deliberate policy, as well and even if youre not an agent of the Chinese Government and still sending Chinese Students to places like mit or cal tech or what have you to study Artificial Intelligence or quantum computing and just coming back to china and working in chinese industry is much better for china than it is for the United States and its something to which we need to be attentive, as well. We have some questions from the audience. One. We talked about the rays act some and what are the prospects of some kind of legislation . This congress doesnt seem very likely, but is there a is there a realistic scenario for Something Like, say the rays act to be passed . I know when they introduced the rays act two years ago that it would be a slow and gradual path to build support for it, but we have added two new cosponsors among the freshmen class of senators this year. Were getting growing support, as well. As you say, i have measured expectations of passing with nancy pelosi at the house. It is amazing that shes now in the wing of the house of representatives and all wanting to criminalize ilLegal Immigration and give health care to Illegal Immigrants. I suspect, though, that with another loss to donald trump in 2020 that some democrats may begin to see things in a dafrnt w different way and the way Barbara Jordan viewed the matter or what bill clinton used to say about ilLegal Immigration in the 1990s, things that would get him excommunicated from todays Democratic Party. As has often been the case in our history on major immigration legislation the issue percolates for many years before conditions become ripe in congress. So its just a matter of continuing to do the work from day to day and for congress to educate my colleagues and to try to bring them around to our point of view. The this is not one of the questions that was submitted, but it occurred to me that one of the targeted changes that, you know, the rays act is a broad rewrite of the whole immigration system and one of the things that everybody seems to be for, president obamas for it, everybodys for it was mandatory e verify. In other words, when you hire somebody you are able to check online, you are already able, but you would be required to check online whether the person is lying to you and telling you the truth about who they are and what prospects of Something Like that passing because like i said thats targeted, everybody said theyre for it and yet it just keeps not happening. Yeah. I think this is an example of where you have something of a silent conspiracy between the left and republicans, who kind of reflexively favor the interests of big business. Obviously everify would make it much harder to employ Illegal Immigrants. Stories about false positives and glitches in the system, those are 15 years old by this point. Everify is very effective. The failure rate is small. I dont mean to to put you on the spot, but do you use it at your office for hiring . Id have to ask. I think its required for all government contractors. In fact, we looked at the numbers and it seems that the a majority of new hires are actually already been screened through it. In a sense, its reached a kind of tipping point. Seems to me thats a selling point. Its already widely used. I speak to Senior Business executives and industries that do in certain parts of the country rely heavily on immigrant labor like hospitality. They frequently tell me, look, we think we need more workers, we use everify. We want to make sure that every person who works here is legally authorized to be in this country and to work. Part of this reason we do that is when we say we need more workers, we want to be able to say and all of our workers are legal as well. There are still plenty of employers who would rather not do that, who would rather look the other way and benefit from more control, more loyalty and lower wages and also people on the left that just, you know, th their kind of devotion to identity politics dont want to do anything that smacks of internal enforcement. Last month in the democratic debates, we saw that not only do they not want to enforce the law against anyone whos in this country illegally, they also dont want to enforce the border either. This is arkansas specific. Walmarts based in arkansas. Have they weighed in on the immigration issue . We talked about walmart uses everify. Theyre a good corporate employer. They pay a good wage. I think their new wage is up to 11 or 12 an hour, not just in arkansas but around the country as well. I think they would like to see an immigration system that works for our communities, but in terms of their employment practices, theyre a good corporate employer. Good, good. This is a question from the audience just asking in your tenure in office how has attitudes toward enforcement changed among your colleagues. What i want to focus that maybe on is how have republican members attitudes changed on the immigration issue . Have you seen a shift . The old line is the left wants immigration for the cheap votes and the right wants it for the cheap labor. But the consensus has developed and expanded among republicans more, even those republicans who used kind offend relaxes on the immigration issue have become less so as theyve seen the saliency of the issues. For a lot of republicans, especially those not focused on the immigration issue, have always focused on ilLegal Immigration. Its the issue that is maybe easiest to talk to voters about and focus on, but it also allows them to focus on ilLegal Immigration system that really rewards large employers in terms of guest workers and lots more green cards that are going to benefit big businesses without necessarily benefitting American Workers. When you have situations like the border now thats truly in crisis, i think most republicans do genuinely want to try to solve that. The democrats dont. I would look at the attitudes of my democratic colleagues. You know, the model of those bills i opposed not only when i was in the house but just when i was a private citizen, goes back to 1986 and it was amnesty and mass migration up front in return for promises of enforcement. The reason why those bills failed is the 1986 bill failed because you got the amnesty immediately, which is irreversible and of course you got the large increases in immigration, which a lot of republican constituents love. But you never got the enforcement. People keep talking about comprehensive immigration reform, which is the code word for that kind of bill. Mass amnesty up front, promise of enforcement later. I dont think you could even have that kind of compromise today because the democrats are no longer credible in their promises of future enforcement. I dont see how you could even negotiate in good faith and have that kind of compromise with the democrats anymore given how radical their attitudes toward Immigration Enforcement have become. Nancy pelosi is the seicentr wing of the Democratic Party. They intentionally said repeatedly as a selling point for obamacare that Illegal Immigrants would not be eligible for obamacare. Now youd got poor joe biden getting attacked on debate stages by democrats who say they deported too many Illegal Immigrants during the obama biden years. Just shows you how radical the democrats have become on the question of immigration. This is a question on the southern border. What are some of the measures you think we can take in the event of another big caravan approaching the border . The measures the president has taken have made had some effect but they havent solved the problem. I think well have to see where the numbers are. They have declined somewhat. I hope thats because of the policy and not just because its hot in june, july and august. But some of these policies are still early. They still have to be fully implemented. They still have to be implemented period if a court has enjoined them. Thats one reason why i was encouraged by the courts decision to overturn one of these left swing injunctions in california. I hope well continue to seek appeals to prevent these left wing judges from trying to intervene. There is zero role for a federal judge to enjoin a decision between the government of mexico and the United States government about whether mexico will keep foreign nationals on its own soil. There is zero grounds for a federal judge to intervene in that kind of core Foreign Policy decision. Thats part of a broader issue, is this injunctions. District court judges essentially have a veto over not only the executive branch but those courts. There was two dueling decisions. Is there a place there for congress to intervene . I would like to see Congress Pass legislation that would roll back District Court judges in local communities around the country from enjoining laws nationwide. Again, thats not even adjudicating the question on the merits. Thats giving injunction up front before theres been adjudication of tn the merits. Justice scalise now were letting unelected lawyers in San Francisco set immigration policy for this country. Again, i was heartened by the supreme courts decision last week. I hope they acting on accelerated appeals by the department of justice will continue to send a clear signal to all of these left wing judges that they ought not be trying to set immigration policy from their courtroom. I know you have to run. The senates got important business to do. I appreciate you giving us your time. Were going to be posting this to the internet as well to our website and hopefully well have you back when the reyes act passes. Appreciate it. [ applause ] in 1979 a Small Network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea, let viewers make up their own minds. Cspan opened the doors to washington policy making for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress yoonand beyond. Today that big idea is more relevant than ever. Cspan is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. Brought to you as a Public Service by your cable or satellite provider. The Wilson Center here in washington hosted a discussion on the First Six Months on the new president of brazil, bolsonaro. This is just under two hours